Cause Celebs Sell Charity-Who’s Nice? Who’s Naughty?

The start of January, with New Year’s resolutions not yet fading into memory and hangovers from the long, sad tedium of 2004 still lingering, seems like an appropriate time to take stock of a few things.

The credit-card debt towering over our heads. The friend we refused to bail out of a small-town lockup. The sheer emotional mess of our lonely lives. And whether we’re giving enough money to the charities we appear on television to promote.

For pop star Jessica Simpson, along with Rosie O’Donnell, Derek Jeter and plenty of other stars, carefully cultivating relationships with select charitable foundations-or founding one’s own-is a part of the job. There’s the oft-touted need to use one’s advantages to help others. And all that altruism makes for some great headlines!

If some stars use causes to benefit from the attention, plenty of others use the attention they get to benefit causes. Who are we to say which are which?

Leonardo DiCaprio and Sandra Bullock are giving plenty to tsunami disaster relief, and Oprah Winfrey and Rosie O’Donnell have won praise for the sheer size and the efficiency of their charitable organizations. But there are a few celebrities-like Calvin Klein and Whitney Houston-whose groups are either in debt or haven’t donated very much money. Whatever their intentions, their results are something we can judge.

So The Observer decided to take a look at several dozen celebrities and their charities-to see how much money they’re raising, how much they’re giving away and how much they’ve squandered.

“A lot of celebrities will set up a foundation with a lot of hoopla and fanfare and don’t put their own resources into it-for some reason, they’re chintzy-and don’t ask their wealthy friends for money either,” said Daniel Borochoff, the president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, a charity watchdog group. “Sometimes they’ll get family and friends involved that don’t know what they’re doing, so the charity ends up poorly managed.”

According to industry guidelines, about 60 percent of a charity’s expenses should go directly to charitable activities. While most of the charities on this list meet that target-Jessica Simpson and Vince Carter, shame on you-others are falling into debt or inactivity.

“Michael Jackson’s had a number of charities that didn’t amount to anything,” said Mr. Borochoff. “I’ve been told a lot of egregious stories in confidence, so I can’t tell you the really good stuff!”

Some of the best-respected celebrity charities are the Lance Armstrong Foundation and the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, according to Sandra Miniutti, director of external relations and spokeswoman for Charity Navigator, another charity watchdog.

“On the flip side, one of the most well-known poorly run charities is Operation Smile, which has partnered with Jessica Simpson,” she said. “A relatively low percentage of their budget is going to the services they’re in the business of providing and instead go to high administration and fund-raising expenses.

“The majority of celebrity-affiliated charities are well-run. However, what we say to donors is: Just because a celebrity endorses the charity doesn’t mean it’s an excellent charity.”

See for yourself. The entries below show how much the celebrities raked in and the percentage of the charities’ expenses (“Ratio of Program Expenses” in philanthropy-speak) that actually went to charitable activities.

The Justin Timberlake Foundation, which provides financial aid to education groups who develop or enhance music programs in the public schools, hasn’t filed a return since 2002, when it reported assets of $6,306 and $141,077 in program services (a 74 percent ratio of its total expenses).